Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adameda Murray: The Biggest WomanTo Ever Walk The North Country

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per speedy deletion criteria G11, G3 -- The Anome (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adameda Murray: The Biggest WomanTo Ever Walk The North Country

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems to be entirely about a book, with no evidence given for that book's notability. I can't find any evidence for an "Adameda Murray" myth other than references to a series of books by the same author as the book cited here. The Anome (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found the exact same results as above. I'd say that this is all a hoax in that while stories do exist, they aren't folk tales that have been handed down from generation to generation. I think that this is just one guy trying to promote his work on Wikipedia, as can be seen by the deleted article at Adameda Murray, which was deleted as a spam article. The content is almost identical, except that there is no name dropping of the book. Looking at the edits of the original editor, I think this is a clear case of spam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as a speedy as a hoax and as a spam article. I've also tagged a copy that was in the editor's userspace, as they seem to be cut and pasting a copy of that into the mainspace. I'd actually recommend that the editor in question get blocked for a short period of time or indefinitely since their only edits have been to try to introduce this character onto Wikipedia as a genuine folk tale creation as well as to try to add the author's book onto Wikipedia since December of last year. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the comments above, and just having seen that the sandbox page was added to Category:Legendary people, I concur: in the absence of any evidence that these are well-established folk tales, this is a job for speedy deletion, and doesn't need an AfD. Speedied.-- The Anome (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.